If the Wikipedia page for the Law Library of Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Library_of_Congress) is to believed (and I see no reason why it shouldn't be), then the Law Library of Congress contains 2.8 million books on the subject of Law, alone.

That's a lot of books on Law.

You seem to be telling me (by implication) that

a) That the sanctions are absolute, because they are Law.

b) That all people, under all circumstances, must follow all absolute Laws.

c) That in the 2.8 million Law books, there are no conflicting Law or Laws.

d) That in the 2.8 million Law books, there are no Laws, written at an earlier time, that govern the passage of laws at a later time, and what they may or may not contain;

e) That no trials, nor court interpretation of a Law in the broader context of all other Laws -- are necessary ever.

f) That courts have never interpreted similar Laws and changed, modified, and/or deleted their efficacy;

If I am misreading you then please feel free to correct me.

But, my point is simply this. If someone placed $1,000,000 on a table, and told me to bet that that "Law" was absolute in all of its aspects, and that he would bet against me, based on what I know, I could not take that bet...